W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2019

Re: Structured Headers: URI type (#782)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 06:19:39 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5388.1556777979@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <0bab4850-fbe6-a318-71b2-a0e89a74ae74@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes

>I don't think that the discussion in the github issue really concluded.
>It would be nice if Poul-Henning would follow-up on my replies.

I really dont have anything to add to what I said a month ago.

I can see the point, but not the compelling argument.

First, It's not like we cannot move a URI in SH.  Sh-string are
perfectly capable of that, and I put sh-binary in the spec as
"Kernighan-Escape"[1], should that fail.

Second,  If demarcating URIs in SH was important, somebody would
surely have spotted the deliberate mistake in the strawman syntax
I proposed a month ago ?

So no, I'm 100% with Mark that URIs are not worth another several
months of nothing much happening to this draft.


[1] https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html section 2.6

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 06:20:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC